Re Andy's [5793]:
> Just to
> reiterate, the explicit motivations of a scientist
>(what they *say* they are doing) are not
> necessarily their actual motivations.
Perhaps. However, their actual motivations can
not be gauged by the consequences of a debate.
> I don't think your reply
> (concerning unintended consequences) grapples > with this point, rather
it supports it.
I don't think your reply, though, has grappled
with the issue of unintended consequences. E.g.
you wrote:
> Where do we look then for further 'evidence'
> (better called 'justification')? Well I suggest to
> the content of the debate. This is 'value'. Value > is crucial in the
CMP. Hence this seems the
> better bet as to the real motivation underlying the > debate. (Though it
is true I am interested in the
> real reason as opposed to motivations, per se).
OK, value is crucial to the CMP. So what?
You are assuming that since there has been a
debate (and it has gone on for a long time) that
the 'reason' (and, btw, I don't think that where
human behavior is concerned, the 'reason'
for behavior can be entirely separated from
motivations) for the debate must also concern
something crucial. Yet, history is replete with
instances to the contrary (e.g. how many angels,
Gil asked, can dance on a pin?).
> It is an *implicit* motivation,
This is the *assumption* that you are making.
> : defensiveness
> has some or other positive outcome
There may be other positive outcomes
(consequences) of a debate but that then can not
be taken to be the 'reason' for the debate.
> Re Fine on consumption, the household, etc.
> You will find Fine himself is keen to stress his
> to debt to value theory on these
> issues.
Well ... I'm not sure that he always does. The
connection of the subject of women's employment
and the family to his understanding of value
was part of his book _Women's Employment and
the Capitalist Family_ (London, Routledge, 1992),
but what about his books on consumption and
food? Where exactly is the stress there?
> RE my own line of research. Would that it were > so easy to jump to more
concrete issues!
Well ... you've got a good excuse -- you're still a
(relatively [at least relative to the average age on
OPE-L!) young person.
In solidarity, Jerry
PS: Sorry to all for parts of my 5796. There
were a couple of sentences near the beginning
that were misleading. I figured, though, that others
would despite that be able to figure out what
I was trying to say and I didn't want to burden
everyone with another post in which I made the
correction.